[Signing] Jets re-sign Adam Lowry

[wallstreetamigo]

24 minutes ago, Toyotasfan said:

When you compare Lowry to what we pay for the likes of Beagle and Sutter contracts this is an absolute bargain. 

This is true.

 

Those contracts were signed pre-covid though so its not a complete apples to apples. But both were overpaid at the time so its a fair point.

[Tower102]

Is there ever any middle ground among Canuck fans. 

 

Apparently Pearson is overpaid by an amount that led to an apocalypse (although I figure its more so people on the #firebenning train looking for more fuel).

 

And apparently Lowry is a STEAL. 

 

Honestly, these players are both within a couple hundred K of where they should be (can argue up or down). Nothing that should be making huge waves.

 

Pearson is a top 6 winger with much better point production and is used in a defensive match up role as well. While his best days are likely behind him, he is not old and is only signed for 3 years. Lowry is a 3c that is good at faceoffs, good defensively and has a bit of a mean streak. Hard to compare them too much, but I'd say likely pretty similar value, maybe leaning slightly towards Lowry as he is having a better year. The 2 extra years for him compensate a lot of extra value, as you all admit when we don't get the term we want.

 

Did I hope that Pearson would be signed a bit lower considering Covid, sure, but I didn't expect much lower. Something I was disappointed with, but not an atrocious deal by any means. 

 

In my opinion the only reason people hated the Pearson deal was because we are tight for cap room (if Petey and Hughes demand the high amounts you all speculate - I personally think it will be lower than that), so its more of a continuation of the cap complaining we have been seeing for the last couple years opposed to actual Pearson hate.  But then again, its hard to tell with this fan base. We get mad when our GM trades late picks or young guys for prime age players that help the team because we HAVE to rebuild slow, and then get mad when we haven't won the cup while all those prospects we did collect are still just starting their careers. I personally love the team and try to actually support them, seems like a lot just want to b*tch and moan about the team every day. 

[spook007]

5 hours ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

JB set the bar high with the Pearson deal and it looks like other teams are basing deals off that. Lowry doesn't produce much offence (although he is this year) but is a solid, big strong 3rd line rock for the Jets. You could argue he's pretty similar to Pearson, but is about to enter his best years whereas Pearson is leaving his.

Just out of curiosity how do you come to that conclusion? Lowry is 28 and so is Pearson (7month older than Lowry)?

[Stormriders]

To me, the simple equation is:  based on the two contracts, just signed, given the choice of the two, which player and contract would you pick.  To me, hands down Lowry.  He makes that Winnipeg 3rd line one of if not the best 3rd line in hockey [put Copp back on the line, as he has been moved because of injury].  Pearson, who I like but don't think is a true 2nd line player of a cup team, can be replaced much more easily than Lowry.  If Winnipeg hadn't resigned him, who would you try and sign in the off season for your 3rd line centre before him ??        Come cup run, Lowry will be a beast !

[wallstreetamigo]

1 hour ago, Tower102 said:

Is there ever any middle ground among Canuck fans. 

 

Apparently Pearson is overpaid by an amount that led to an apocalypse (although I figure its more so people on the #firebenning train looking for more fuel).

 

And apparently Lowry is a STEAL. 

 

Honestly, these players are both within a couple hundred K of where they should be (can argue up or down). Nothing that should be making huge waves.

 

Pearson is a top 6 winger with much better point production and is used in a defensive match up role as well. While his best days are likely behind him, he is not old and is only signed for 3 years. Lowry is a 3c that is good at faceoffs, good defensively and has a bit of a mean streak. Hard to compare them too much, but I'd say likely pretty similar value, maybe leaning slightly towards Lowry as he is having a better year. The 2 extra years for him compensate a lot of extra value, as you all admit when we don't get the term we want.

 

Did I hope that Pearson would be signed a bit lower considering Covid, sure, but I didn't expect much lower. Something I was disappointed with, but not an atrocious deal by any means. 

 

In my opinion the only reason people hated the Pearson deal was because we are tight for cap room (if Petey and Hughes demand the high amounts you all speculate - I personally think it will be lower than that), so its more of a continuation of the cap complaining we have been seeing for the last couple years opposed to actual Pearson hate.  But then again, its hard to tell with this fan base. We get mad when our GM trades late picks or young guys for prime age players that help the team because we HAVE to rebuild slow, and then get mad when we haven't won the cup while all those prospects we did collect are still just starting their careers. I personally love the team and try to actually support them, seems like a lot just want to b*tch and moan about the team every day. 

Its the pattern of contract signings that causes concern. Not just one player signing. On its own, without the Eriksson, Beagle, Roussel, Sutter, Baertschi, contracts and a buyout on the books and cap space available, the Pearson signing would be an overpayment (based on the combination of dollars, term, trade protection, and - if true - guaranteed expansion protection, not just for the dollar amount imo) but not worth being overly concerned about.

 

Its the fact that Benning keeps signing these type of contracts and has now started having to lose better players because of them.

 

I know I hope Pearson overachieves on this contract but if he doesn't it will just be one more untradeable contract.

 

Its fine to expect EP and QH will sign lower contracts than what is being estimated. Maybe that will happen. The problem is if they do push the dollar amounts higher (which is not unrealistic considering their agent) it leaves little cap to fill out the team next year. 

 

There is a lot of cumulative risk with all these signings. Any time a team is a cap max spender for several years but is still a basement dweller in the league despite some good young talent, its fair to question the overall strategy and the GM.

[Tower102]

5 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Its the pattern of contract signings that causes concern. Not just one player signing. On its own, without the Eriksson, Beagle, Roussel, Sutter, Baertschi, contracts and a buyout on the books and cap space available, the Pearson signing would be an overpayment (based on the combination of dollars, term, trade protection, and - if true - guaranteed expansion protection, not just for the dollar amount imo) but not worth being overly concerned about.

 

Its the fact that Benning keeps signing these type of contracts and has now started having to lose better players because of them.

 

I know I hope Pearson overachieves on this contract but if he doesn't it will just be one more untradeable contract.

 

Its fine to expect EP and QH will sign lower contracts than what is being estimated. Maybe that will happen. The problem is if they do push the dollar amounts higher (which is not unrealistic considering their agent) it leaves little cap to fill out the team next year. 

 

There is a lot of cumulative risk with all these signings. Any time a team is a cap max spender for several years but is still a basement dweller in the league despite some good young talent, its fair to question the overall strategy and the GM.

I get your arguments, but for me it doesn't matter that we are squeezed at the cap when we aren't in a realistic contending window yet. The cap squeeze cost us Markstrom, Toffoli and Tanev, at least two of those if not all three would not have been good contracts to have on our books when it mattered more, while properly trying to contend. Over paying the guys you listed did very little to actually hamper us in the goal to winning the cup, having Beagle and Sutter on over paid contracts has probably helped the team get to that goal more than it has hampered that. We were never going to properly contend for a cup for the length of any of those contracts (especially doing it slow, the way most of us wanted it done). If this cap squeeze properly costs us a player that would be a strong asset in winning a cup in our window, then I will get on board with the poor cap management argument, until then it really hasn't hurt the contending window. 

[iinatcc]

2 hours ago, Tower102 said:

Is there ever any middle ground among Canuck fans. 

 

Apparently Pearson is overpaid by an amount that led to an apocalypse (although I figure its more so people on the #firebenning train looking for more fuel).

 

And apparently Lowry is a STEAL. 

Apparently, according to the folks in the media, the Pearson signing set the precedence of the term and salary Top 9 forwards like Lowry and Laughton are getting. Also from these reports some GM's were not happy at the Pearson signing as well since they were expecting these type of players to sign on less term and money.  

 

So yes while the Perason deal looks better now, one might argue that these other deals we've seen these past few days to middle/top 9 forwards would have looked different if it wasn't for Pearson's contract.

 

So it's still Benning's fault for setting the market too high 

 

Actually I never thought the Pearson deal was bad, it was actually ok. But the optics of the signing makes the Canucks Management look really bad. 

Edited April 17, 2021 by iinatcc

[wallstreetamigo]

36 minutes ago, Tower102 said:

I get your arguments, but for me it doesn't matter that we are squeezed at the cap when we aren't in a realistic contending window yet. The cap squeeze cost us Markstrom, Toffoli and Tanev, at least two of those if not all three would not have been good contracts to have on our books when it mattered more, while properly trying to contend. Over paying the guys you listed did very little to actually hamper us in the goal to winning the cup, having Beagle and Sutter on over paid contracts has probably helped the team get to that goal more than it has hampered that. We were never going to properly contend for a cup for the length of any of those contracts (especially doing it slow, the way most of us wanted it done). If this cap squeeze properly costs us a player that would be a strong asset in winning a cup in our window, then I will get on board with the poor cap management argument, until then it really hasn't hurt the contending window. 

I disagree. If the team was not going to be competitive for those years, then why the need to sign expensive veteran players in the first place? The stated goal by Benning with every one of those signings was to make the team competitive and to get to the playoffs.

 

Clearly it didn't accomplish that. Changing the reasoning now just to make excuses for Benning is disingenuous at best. 

 

Toffoli, a guy who fit in very well and produced points, at 4.25 for the same term as Pearson's extension would be a problem by the end but none of those other signings are a problem?

 

Come on man.

 

I have news for you. We are much further away ftom contending than we were last year when Toffoli, Tanev, Stecher, Markstrom, etc. were here. Losing them because of those other contracts cant be seen as a step forward. Even Benning is saying a minimum of two years to be competitive. I remember him trading for Toffoli last trade deadline. It seems he thought the team was closer than 2 years minimum. So he is, in effect, admitting himself the team has taken a significant step back. That is directly linked to all the dead money and overpayments on the roster.

 

Thats the point. If Benning keeps signing these contracts its going to squeeze out a core player sooner or later. 

[AB72]

40 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

The stated goal by Benning with every one of those signings was to make the team competitive and to get to the playoffs.

 

Clearly it didn't accomplish that.

Last season called. They wanted to know why you obviously didn't watch. 

[Sedinyoureyesontheprize]

At this point you sign BS to only 1 year deals at maximum pay cut. Basically a home town discount for underperforming and being injured all those games during his bloated contract here. 
 

Some of y’all crazy suggesting longer term and money in the 2-3 million dollar range. Lol

[Kenny Blankenship]

1 hour ago, iinatcc said:

Also from these reports some GM's were not happy at the Pearson signing as well since they were expecting these type of players to sign on less term and money.  

 

I don’t care for the media in general because I feel like they just make things up half the time, but is there actually any proof of this? Otherwise it sounds like bs to me. I doubt the fact that Benning signed Pearson to a fairly reasonable contract holds any weight in regards to other signings. Seems like a pretty huge reach to me. 

[iinatcc]

14 minutes ago, Kenny Blankenship said:

I don’t care for the media in general because I feel like they just make things up half the time, but is there actually any proof of this? Otherwise it sounds like bs to me. I doubt the fact that Benning signed Pearson to a fairly reasonable contract holds any weight in regards to other signings. Seems like a pretty huge reach to me. 

It's one of the many audio clips in Sportsnet 650. Unfortunately I don't remember which one. But the folks in Sportsnet 650 and the hockey insiders they interviewed did feel Pearson contract did set the market and other teams either had to add term or salary. 

[wallstreetamigo]

1 hour ago, mcchorvirt said:

Last season called. They wanted to know why you obviously didn't watch. 

I watched. The reality is they only got into the playoffs because covid ended the season.They beat STL and were ok in that series. STL was terrible though. They were completely overmatched vs Vegas. If it wasn't for Demko standing on his head.

 

They weren't really a competitive playoff team last year. 

 

If you are saying that Beagle, Roussel, Sutter, Eriksson, and ahl Baertschi signing overpriced contracts with the team are what got Vancouver to the playoffs last year then clearly YOU weren't watching. A couple of young star players on elc or cheap contracts (EP, TD, and QH), a couple of young vets on reasonable deals (BH and BB), a couple of older vets on reasonable deals (JTM, TT, CT, and TMotte) drove the bus to even get them a chance at the playoffs and carried them past STL. Pearson was pretty good too btw.

 

All of Bennings bad contracts were passengers or worse. 

[iinatcc]

2 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

All of Bennings bad contracts were passengers or worse. 

Yeah. I also Ray Ferraro saying Eriksson looked the most disengaged in the Cancuks during the bubble.

 

kmowing this I'm starting to feel Eriksson came to Vancouver just to collect a pay check and nothing else 

[spook007]

Wonder how many here would start to complain about the length of the contract, had Benning signed Lowry to a 5 year deal?

He was not likely going to be coming here for £ 3.25M but still?

[stawns]

9 hours ago, iinatcc said:

Apparently, according to the folks in the media, the Pearson signing set the precedence of the term and salary Top 9 forwards like Lowry and Laughton are getting. Also from these reports some GM's were not happy at the Pearson signing as well since they were expecting these type of players to sign on less term and money.  

 

So yes while the Perason deal looks better now, one might argue that these other deals we've seen these past few days to middle/top 9 forwards would have looked different if it wasn't for Pearson's contract.

 

So it's still Benning's fault for setting the market too high 

 

Actually I never thought the Pearson deal was bad, it was actually ok. But the optics of the signing makes the Canucks Management look really bad. 

How so?  The guy had a career year last year, produces offense while also playing a shutdown role, is in the prime of his career and basically stayed pat on his contract for the next three years.  I would think GM's would be lined up to thank JB for that

 

[stawns]

6 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I watched. The reality is they only got into the playoffs because covid ended the season.They beat STL and were ok in that series. STL was terrible though. They were completely overmatched vs Vegas. If it wasn't for Demko standing on his head.

 

They weren't really a competitive playoff team last year. 

 

If you are saying that Beagle, Roussel, Sutter, Eriksson, and ahl Baertschi signing overpriced contracts with the team are what got Vancouver to the playoffs last year then clearly YOU weren't watching. A couple of young star players on elc or cheap contracts (EP, TD, and QH), a couple of young vets on reasonable deals (BH and BB), a couple of older vets on reasonable deals (JTM, TT, CT, and TMotte) drove the bus to even get them a chance at the playoffs and carried them past STL. Pearson was pretty good too btw.

 

All of Bennings bad contracts were passengers or worse. 

So when bad things happen it's the Canucks/JB's fault, but when good things happen it's because the other team sucks.

 

Holy gaslighting batman

[Toyotasfan]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F4RM-RDYvSc

 

I’d trade Pearson for Lowry in a heartbeat, not even a close comparison, who even brought that up . 

 

 

Edited April 17, 2021 by Toyotasfan

[stawns]

1 minute ago, Toyotasfan said:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F4RM-RDYvSc

 

I’d trade Pearson for Lowry in a heartbeat, not even a close comparison, who even brought that up . 

 

 

Different roles

[JM_]

10 hours ago, Stormriders said:

To me, the simple equation is:  based on the two contracts, just signed, given the choice of the two, which player and contract would you pick.  To me, hands down Lowry.  He makes that Winnipeg 3rd line one of if not the best 3rd line in hockey [put Copp back on the line, as he has been moved because of injury].  Pearson, who I like but don't think is a true 2nd line player of a cup team, can be replaced much more easily than Lowry.  If Winnipeg hadn't resigned him, who would you try and sign in the off season for your 3rd line centre before him ??        Come cup run, Lowry will be a beast !

agree fully. This is why my preference would have been for Jim to wait as see if Lowry became available. 

 

There are some interesting names on the UFA C list, but my guess is we see a few of them get locked up as well.